For example, the patented product X is a pencil with an eraser, and the new product is a drawing compass with a pencil. * * * The same part A is a pencil.
The protection scope of Party A's patented products is somewhat narrow, only protecting A+B, not A or B, so only A in B is not within the scope advocated by Party A. ..
If there is a patent and the scope of protection is pencil A, then the new product Y will be infringed. This kind of infringement may be indirect infringement or direct infringement, which needs to be judged according to the contents of patent claims. Generally, indirect infringement is not liable for compensation, as long as it provides the legal source of the infringing product.
Supplement:
Then Party A applies for a patent for the new product Y,
The independent claim is y,
The dependent claim is a,
(The claims here protect Y=X+A, Y+A = X+A+A ...)
Party B (manufacturer) did not produce the new product Y,
On the contrary, the key component A is produced and sold to Party C (user).
(According to the scope protected by the right claim, Party B is not responsible! )
Party C buys product X from Party D (the seller).
(Party D is not responsible)
Then party c assembles a and x into a new product y.
(If Party C directly infringes, Party A may demand compensation from Party C and compensate Y, which violates the right of independent claim. )
Then can Party A claim compensation from Party B?
Do you compensate a or y when making compensation?
Is this direct infringement or indirect infringement?
(From this point of view, Party A's claim may have been wrongly written, resulting in things that should have been protected not being protected. )
A's claim is best written like this:
1. product y containing x, characterized in that product y also contains a. ..
2.a product a.
One * * * two independent claims, and A is better as an independent claim. At this point, the products to be protected are Y=X+A and A. Then both B and C are liable for compensation, which is a direct infringement.